827 F.3d 591
7th Cir.2016Background
- Leo Stoller became beneficiary of a trust owning a River Forest, IL property, then assigned the beneficial interest to his daughter but retained a "power of direction," which he used to obtain loans and collect rent.
- In his December 2005 bankruptcy forms, Stoller answered under penalty of perjury that he controlled no property owned by another person; he did not disclose the trust property.
- He was indicted on counts including knowingly and fraudulently making a false statement in a bankruptcy proceeding (18 U.S.C. § 152(3)); he pled guilty to one count and others were dismissed.
- After plea but before sentencing Stoller changed counsel, sought (but did not formally move for) withdrawal of his plea on competency and colloquy grounds, and was examined by a neuropsychologist who found him competent and suggested possible exaggeration of deficits.
- The district court denied motions to withdraw the plea, credited Stoller’s plea-stage sworn statements over later unsworn protests, and sentenced him to 20 months.
- On appeal Stoller argued (1) the indictment was defective because the property was not part of his estate; (2) the plea was coerced; (3) he was incompetent when he pled; (4) the Rule 11 colloquy was inadequate; and (5) ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether indictment defective because trust property not in bankruptcy estate | Stoller: River Forest property was not estate property, so failure to list it is not a crime | Government: Question asked about "all property ... held or controlled," and §152(3) criminalizes false statements about property controlled though not owned | Held: Indictment valid; false statement charge covers undisclosed controlled property |
| Whether plea was coerced | Stoller: First appointed lawyer coerced plea by promising probation only | Government/District: Stoller swore plea was voluntary; later unsworn assertions contradicted plea colloquy; no specific credible proof of promise | Held: No plain error; court credited plea-stage testimony and rejected unsworn sentencing-stage claim |
| Whether court should have held competency hearing sua sponte | Stoller: He has dementia/Alzheimer’s and was incompetent when pleading | Government/District: Counsel and prosecutor saw no concern; judge conducted on-the-record competency questioning; later independent exam found him competent | Held: No abuse of discretion; no bona fide doubt warranted sua sponte hearing |
| Whether Rule 11 colloquy was deficient (voluntariness, rights, and warnings) | Stoller: Judge failed to advise on five Rule 11(b) topics and failed to elicit improper-promise inquiry | Government/District: Colloquy and detailed written plea agreement covered substance; omissions were harmless absent evidence of prejudice | Held: Any Rule 11 deviations were harmless under Rule 11(h); denial of plea withdrawal not an abuse |
| Ineffective assistance of counsel | Stoller: various perfunctory challenges to counsel effectiveness | Government/District: Claims undeveloped and unsupported on record | Held: Appellate court declines to address on direct appeal; recommends §2255 collateral attack if pursued |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (1979) (prosecutorial discretion subject to constitutional constraints)
- Gomez v. Berge, 434 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2006) (guilty plea waives prior formal defects)
- United States v. George, 403 F.3d 470 (7th Cir. 2005) (guilty plea waives argument indictment failed to state an offense)
- United States v. Hernandez-Rivas, 513 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 2008) (deferential review of district court’s acceptance of guilty pleas)
- United States v. Van Allen, 524 F.3d 814 (7th Cir. 2008) (reliance on counsel opinion can negate required mental state for some crimes)
- Burt v. Uchtman, 422 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2005) (competency standard for plea: consult with counsel and rational/factual understanding)
- United States v. Woodard, 744 F.3d 488 (7th Cir. 2014) (sua sponte competency hearing required only if bona fide doubt arises)
- United States v. Messino, 55 F.3d 1241 (7th Cir. 1995) (no mandated script for Rule 11 colloquies; substance matters)
- United States v. Fernandez, 205 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) (harmless-error inquiry focuses on whether omission affected willingness to plead)
- Massaro v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 (2003) (ineffective-assistance claims often better pursued in §2255 collateral proceedings)